Skip Navigation


Cambridge Journal of Economics Advance Access originally published online on January 10, 2005
Cambridge Journal of Economics 2005 29(5):709-727; doi:10.1093/cje/bei023
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
29/5/709    most recent
bei023v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Latsis, J. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Related Collections
Right arrow B10 - General
Right arrow B14 - Socialist; Marxist
Right arrow B41 - Economic Methodology
Right arrow C71 - Cooperative Games
Right arrow D02 - Institutions: Design, Formation, and Operations
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2005. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Cambridge Political Economy Society. All rights reserved.

Is there redemption for conventions?

J. S. Latsis*

* Department of History and Philosophy of Science and King's College, University of Cambridge

Address for correspondence: John Latsis, Flat 98, New River Head, 173 Rosebery Avenue, London EC1R 4UP, UK; email: johnplus{at}sete.ch.

This article explores the concept of convention in the social sciences. It presents the two major neo-Humean philosophical approaches to convention and challenges their intuitive appeal and research implications. The weaknesses of these approaches are examined and a new direction is suggested for the study of convention. The paper goes on to develop a framework for the analysis of conventions, using the notion of ‘the exemplar’ introduced by Thomas Kuhn. An illustration of this alternative approach is provided using the example of the ‘wage relation’.

Key Words: Convention • Hume • Marx • Game theory

JEL classifications: B10, B14, B41, C71

Manuscript received July 7, 2003; final version received April 23, 2004.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.